Don't film yobs ... it could be an offence!

[cmsapms]

[url]From our local rag|http://ichuddersfield.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/tm_objectid=15588715%26method=full%26siteid=50060%26headline=don%2dt%2dfilm%2dyobs%2d%2d%2d%2d%2dit%2dcould%2dbe%2dan%2doffence%2d-name_page.html[/url]

:rolleyes:

So you can't even gather the one piece of evidence that might be useful! Words fail me.

Paul

[wolves_wanderer]

Police in "Alienating Natural Supporters" shock

[cotty]

So what about all the CCTV cameras in shopping centres, there must be thousands of kids filmed every hour

[FourWheelDrift]

I have always wondered about the use of filmed evidence, I am sure I have heard it can be inadmissible as evidence in court, as it isn't gained with the consent of the person involved. A bit like audio evidence (like a recorded telephone conversation) can't be used without informing the other person the call is being recorded.

I wonder why this doesn't apply to speed cameras? Although I suppose the signs are the informing part, so instead of people vandalising the cameras they could just remove the signs making the use of the cameras evidence as inadmissible.

>> Edited by FourWheelDrift on Friday 3rd June 15:03

[rooster]

cotty said:

So what about all the CCTV cameras in shopping centres, there must be thousands of kids filmed every hour

as long as it says there are CCTV in use it is legitimate!

[JagLover]

A case that illustrates perfectly what is wrong with the criminal justice system.

The police are far more concerned with the 'rights' of criminals than in preventing and/or detecting crime.

In my opinion local democratic control over the police through directly elected police boards is the only thing that can bring sense to the PC infected higher echelons of the police.

[cotty]

rooster said:

cotty said: So what about all the CCTV cameras in shopping centres, there must be thousands of kids filmed every hour as long as it says there are CCTV in use it is legitimate!

So couldnt the old lady put up signs around her house

[TeamD]

Sigh!

[PetrolTed]

[supaspark]

there is a conspiracy going on in this country and its all becoming apparent!

[rooster]

cotty said:

rooster said: cotty said: So what about all the CCTV cameras in shopping centres, there must be thousands of kids filmed every hour as long as it says there are CCTV in use it is legitimate! So couldnt the old lady put up signs around her house

yup

[apache]

"We treat any type of anti-social behaviour and vandalism seriously and will always take firm and positive action to tackle it."


So why has it been going on for 3 years?

[love machine]

Farmer Dave has the right idea. Shoot them and throw the body in your slurry pit, there will be no trace of anything after a while. Also starved pigs will eat a person bones and all IIRC. This PC nonsense is just driving the dynamo of a massive indifference to the law, do you listen anymore, are you law abiding? I sure as hell am not.

[cotty]

So instead of advising her how she can continue filming kids breaking the law without her breaking the law they make her out to be a paedophile

[rsvmilly]

rooster said:

cotty said: rooster said: cotty said: So what about all the CCTV cameras in shopping centres, there must be thousands of kids filmed every hour as long as it says there are CCTV in use it is legitimate! So couldnt the old lady put up signs around her house yup

And it is also against the rules to film land which doesn't belong to you.

CCTV is legal so long as it is properly signed, and only admissable if the quality is sufficient to clearly identify the offender. I have also heard that a date stamp is required on the image.

[deckster]

rsvmilly said:

And it is also against the rules to film land which doesn't belong to you.

Not quite. It's against the rules to film land which belongs to someone else. Public land (eg the street) is OK.

[deckster]

FourWheelDrift said:

A bit like audio evidence (like a recorded telephone conversation) can't be used without informing the other person the call is being recorded.

Again, not quite. You only need to have the consent of (ie inform) one party of the call. It's perfectly admissable to record your own phone calls but you can't tap into other people's.

[Yugguy]

One day someone in authority is going to wake up and realise this country is royally ed up beyond belief.

[speedychrissie]

this has made me think:

how many people here have any security measurements other than locks on the doors and windows and maybe an alarm?

my house has been broken into twice since i bought it at christmas (once when it was empty and once when my tenants were asleep upstairs). nothing was taken and the only damage was some broken glass and no prints were left so the police say they cant do any more.

when i move into it over the summer i am gonna have a big think about security, adn was just wondering what protection others have.

chris

[granville]

The predictable lunacy of our system once again conspires to configure justice into the likeness of a particularly loathesome, horse's arse.

Screaming damnation, Albion needs some kind of Seagallic justice and YESTERDAY!

>> Edited by derestrictor on Friday 3rd June 16:25